The Supreme Court published its interim decision today on the future of the Palestinian village of Susya [31 Jan 2013]:

Regarding the petition of the far-right organization Regavim calling for demolition of the village, the court decided – in accordance with attorneys Avital Sharon and Quamar Mishirky-Asad of RHR, who represent the village – to grant an extension of 90 days, to allow for the preparation of a plan for the southern section of the village. The state has never provided suitable planning for Palestinian Susya – as it must – and that the planning system which determines the fate of Palestinians in Area C is a military system that does not represent the residents (it is as if the Palestinian Police were to plan Israeli towns without involving Israelis in the process). Granting the possibility of submitting plans by civic parties in dialogue with the villagers is the least that can be expected in terms of justice and fairness.

In the petition that RHR submitted on behalf of the Susya residents, against the methodical blockage of access to their lands, the court gave the state 90 days to detail its plans in that regard. In paragraph 1 of the decision the court directs the state to address in detail to each plot around Susya, and in the absence of a court decision, to provide a date by which the investigation will conclude.

Quamar Mishirky Asad: “Overall it’s a positive ruling, under the circumstances. You have to understand that the attempt to push the Palestinian villagers of Susya into the town of Yata, far from their livelihood – their fields – demonstrates a readiness to trample human rights in favor of an unofficial political policy to annex parts of Area C – annexation without Palestinians. Any political program must be subject to the principles of human and civil rights.”

Rabbi Arik Ascherman: “The truth is that we, Israeli society, are judged on our use of the monopoly of force to determine the fate of Palestinians; of those unrepresented among the judges of the Supreme Court or the planning commissions that determine their future. How can we be a country that twice expelled families from their homes in Susya, pressed them until they lived in caves, destroyed those caves, and then issued demolition orders for anything they built with a roof? Nathan the prophet told David that the king himself was the man who had stolen the poor man’s allegorical sheep. When the ruling comes out, the people will now if we are the analogous state. King David recognized himself in the story. If we recognize who we are today, maybe we will succeed in becoming who we want to be tomorrow.”